Mr. Speaker, that member sat in cabinet for 13 years and would not even address equalization or the fiscal imbalance. He did nothing. He wrote three budgets in his last year that did nothing for Saskatchewan.

This budget delivers 880 million new dollars for the people of Saskatchewan. We as the Conservative members of Saskatchewan will support the people of Saskatchewan, not the premier of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Speaker, the Gander International Airport has been a Newfoundland icon since it began operation in 1938. Often referred to as the crossroads of the world, the airport is a major economic driver in central Newfoundland, not to mention a source of pride in the community.

Our government has been aware of difficulties faced by the airport and we have been engaged on the file with a view to helping the airport be more viable for the future.

Mr. Speaker, we were the ones who initiated an offer to Gander. When we heard that Gander International Airport was in trouble, we had a meeting and brought a number of departments together. We made an offer to Gander to keep it going.

The airport authority rejected the offer, but recently the towns around Gander, Grand Falls, et cetera, got together with the airport authority. They came up again, met with us all, and have now accepted the offer. Right now we are all looking at working together collectively to make sure Gander is there long into the future.

Mr. Speaker, we hardly expect the Minister of Labour to do his job on a bicycle, but we do expect him to disclose how much he is spending on travel, where he has been travelling to, and who has been going with him on his trips.

I should not have to file an access to information request to learn that one of the minister's charter flights, where the expense was listed as zero, actually cost $41,822.

Why did the minister hide this figure? What is he ashamed of and just what was he doing on this $41,822 flight?

However, the significant thing is what he spent compared with his Liberal predecessors. That amount is a lot less than what his Liberal predecessors spent doing their jobs because we get good value for our money when we have Conservatives in government.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians should not have to go on a scavenger hunt to find out what their ministers are spending. Canadians are fed up with this lack of transparency.

For the Conservatives to use the Liberals as the yardstick by which they measure accountability, it would be comical if it were not so sad. It is like choosing between wanton excess and wretched excess.

Will the minister stop hiding behind these lame excuses, stop hiding behind his House leader, and tell us why he does not disclose all of his expenses, so we do not have to use a magnifying glass to figure it out?

Peter Van LoanConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform

Mr. Speaker, I hate to talk about wanton excess, but when I think of wanton excess, I think about the NDP leader who claims to love the environment and claims to go everywhere by bicycle. However, when he was on council, in one year alone, he managed 194 gas guzzling limo rides.

I know he said it was because he had to go to the airport a lot, and he had to do this stuff all across the country, but 194 gas guzzling rides in a limo for a guy who loves the environment, I do not know. It sounds to me like wanton excess.

Mr. Speaker, the Assembly of First Nations has serious concerns with the limited scope of Bill C-44.

The Ontario chiefs feel the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is like throwing a grenade into collective rights. The Canadian Bar Association said the repeal has the potential to undermine the protection of collective rights.

We have to get it right. Why does the minister feel he knows best when it comes to aboriginal peoples, when they themselves do not agree with the government's position?

Jim PrenticeConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will have to make their decision. They will have to decide if they will go back to their tennis clubs and golf clubs for the summer or if they will get Bill C-44 back to the House, so that first nations citizens will no longer be second class citizens in Canada without the protection of a human rights code.

For 13 years the Liberals did nothing about this. It has been 30 years in this country, which is long enough. That is enough consultation. The government intends to act with or without them.

Aboriginal people and women feel used by the minister. Over and over again we have heard about the lack of consultation on Bill C-44, but the government has yet to apologize to the victims of residential schools.

It is a double standard. The government is willing to consult and wait five years to apologize, yet it will enact new legislation without a shred of consultation.

That father knows best approach simply does not work. Why did the government not consult with first nations before enacting this legislation?

Jim PrenticeConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians

Mr. Speaker, any time the hon. member stands to debate aboriginal policy, she is not alone.

She always has the Liberal Party's shameful record beside her, whether it is on housing, whether it is on water, whether it is on section 67 of the Human Rights Act, whether it is on poverty, or whether it is on any of the issues that deal with aboriginal communities.

On specific claims under the Liberal government, claims in this country backlogged from 253 to 800 claims. It is a shameful record.

Mr. Speaker, this new government has known for at least 15 months that it would have a lot of problems at Passport Canada, but that is no excuse. Passport Canada has given me every excuse in the book for not opening more passport offices in the regions of Canada.

Now a new law is being proposed, or at least it was last night when the minister ran up the stairs. I hope this is not just another excuse for not opening new offices. We could work on the new law while Passport Canada opens new offices.

Peter MacKayConservativeMinister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency

Mr. Speaker, it is not an excuse. I ran up the stairs because my office is upstairs.

I have already outlined what we have done. We have hired 500 new employees at Passport Canada. We have been able to cut into the backlog of 20,000 applications a day by now producing 40% more. As far as the hard work and dedication of Passport Canada officials, the member opposite should be applauding them. We are dealing with this issue.

This issue came about as a result of a western hemisphere travel initiative which, I point out the obvious, began under the previous government. We are dealing with issues, getting things done. That is our trademark. The previous government's record is appalling.

Mr. Speaker, the assistance program for exhibits and festivals is floundering, and the Canadian Festivals Coalition has informed the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage that at the rate things are going, the department will not have a program to implement until fall.

In the interest of transparency and to avoid another sponsorship scandal, can the minister tell us why she did not consider the eligibility criteria proposed by the coalition, which would have sped up the process and secured financial assistance for the agencies this summer?

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, the intention for this program was in the budget. We are now at the initial stages of building the criteria and establishing the real needs in the communities. As the process proceed, we will make the guidelines and framework for the program public.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, this government does support the cultural and artistic activities in the local community. We also want to ensure that public money is going to meet the real needs of those communities. Therefore, we will take due process and include all the consultation that is necessary to make it a really effective program for the communities.

Mr. Speaker, while British Columbians are working hard to build ties with our Pacific Rim partners and become a world-class hub of trade, the Conservative member for Delta—Richmond East is busy trying to tear down what British Columbians have built and the plans they have made.

Yesterday the member said that it makes no sense to push ahead with the Pacific gateway strategy. Why has the Minister of International Trade not condemned these irresponsible remarks and when will he defend the Pacific gateway strategy from attacks from his very own caucus?

James MooreConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Pacific Gateway and the Vancouver-Whistler Olympics

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague because it allows me an opportunity to remind this House the great news that this government announced last week.

We announced that we are delivering $1 billion to the Asia-Pacific gateway. From the Hudson Bay Company, through the FTA, through NAFTA and now the Asia-Pacific gateway, Canada always has been and always will be a trading nation. This government is doing everything it can to ensure that it will continue to grow in the international sphere.

Premier Gordon Campbell said it best. He said, “The B.C. caucus of the federal government, the Conservative caucus, has done a great job of grabbing this initiative” and making it a success for British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in December 2004 Canada and the United States announced their intention to establish a pre-clearance pilot project at the Peace Bridge at the Ontario-New York border. This would involve relocating American border operations onto Canadian soil. Recently, negotiations on the pilot project have broken down.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of land pre-clearance offered great potential for easy movement back and forth across the border. It involves officers working on the other person's soil. We had an agreement with the Americans that any agreement had to respect our various laws.

The Americans on their side of the issue are requiring that fingerprints of Canadians be mandatory in certain situations. That goes against our own individual rights.

We want security at the border. We want good movement across the border, but we cannot compromise on our own charter rights. I had to inform the Americans of that. I hope we can find other ways to keep things moving, but we cannot compromise on that.